From: Ed Dieringer
To: Ronda Menlove, David Lifferth, Jack Draxler, Edward Redd, Curt Webb, Ryan Wilcox, Brad Dee, Richard Greenwood, Paul Ray, Curtis Oda, Steve Handy, Stewart Barlow, Roger Barrus, Jim Nielson, Becky Edwards, Doug Sagers, Jennifer M. Seelig, Rebecca Houck, Joel Briscoe, Angela Romero, Mike Kennedy, Brian King, Lee Perry, Janice Fisher, LaVar Christensen, Craig Hall, Pat Marino, Patrice Arent, Carol Moss, Eric Hutchings, Lynn Hemingway, Daniel McCay, Earl Tanner, Tim Cosgrove, Steve Eliason, Marie Poulson, Ken Ivory, Keven John Stratton, Robert Spendlove, Richard Cunningham, John Knotwell, Melvin Brown, Kraig Powell, John G. Mathis, Kay Christofferson, Brian Greene, Val Peterson, Keith Grover, Dean Sanpei, Rebecca Lockhart, Francis Gibson, Merrill Nelson, Jerry Anderson, Kay Mciff, Brad Last, John Westwood, mnoel, Lowry Snow, Don Ipson,
Subject: Fwd: I support HB 159
Date: Fri Mar 07 21:29:19 MST 2014
Body:
I am in my fourth year of being a member of the current child care licensing advisory committee.    I am a licensed child care center owner and CEO. 

I support HB 159 because - the current licensing advisory committee challenges are:

1. The current committee does not work as effectively as many think.  Anyone claiming the licensing advisory committee meetings are effective, either doesn't have knowledge on how good committee meetings should run or they don't attend these meetings to witness the dysfunctions of this committee.
2. There is rarely a quorum for which to finalize any decisions.
3. The two Pediatricians currently sitting on the licensing committee rarely show at these meetings.  Since they aren't generally involved in licensing meetings and issues, nor the Utah Academy of Pediatricians' representative, they and the Academy are not well-informed of the issues. 
4. These meetings are not well run due to the large size of public participation allowed at the meetings.
5. The meetings are often emotionally charged by a large public audience participation with many residential providers not understanding their misapplication of their industry to the realities of licensed centers. 
6. The residential providers - as seen in the Business and Labor Standing Committee meeting - are contemptuous of center providers with frequent accusations (without substantiation) that center providers are looking out for their pocket books rather than the needs and safety of children.  Nothing could be further from the truth.   
7. The significant differences in Residential vs. Center rules, operations, size of facilities makes if difficult to clearly and adequately address the broad spectrum of needs particularly since each specialty really does not have the capacity to deal with the other's rules.

The BENEFITS of this bill are many:
 
1.  With the new structure the State should be able to better meet the needs of children and improve quality by having a more effective governance model which is shown to be effective in many industries.  This has evidence to support it.  It is not based in emotion.
2. A smaller committee should be able to reach quorum easier and smaller groups, with more singular focus are clearly better operating and decision making groups.  Again, evidence abounds here.
3. The make up of the new center committee offers a better representation of experts in the specialty field of licensed centers.
4. Working with a clear and less broad agenda of issues, specifically focused on our own specialty industry, will naturally lead to more productive meetings and better address the needs, safety, and quality of care for children in Centers. 
5. The new Center Committee will face fewer conflicts of interest and emotionally driven conspiracy theories, when we have stakeholders working toward a common vision with common expertise in their specialty area of our industry. 
6.  And, finally, for those who think this is "expanding government," I would contend that there is no expansion and a good chance that this will shrink government.  First, by enlisting a group of  expert volunteers, there is no additional government involvement nor are there additional rules being promulgated.  An idea might be to shrink the residential committee down to 7 members.  Then we would actually have only increased the total number of volunteers by 1.  In the end, though, an effective licensing committee with common background/expertise in a given specialty area (licensed centers) may very well shrink government as they are better able to streamline rule making and rules while at the same time improving quality and safety of child care. 

Sincerely,  Ed Dieringer, CEO
Bennion Learning Center, Taylorsville, UT
Child Care Licensing Advisory Committee Member
2654 S 1500 E, SLC, UT 84106